After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. Wears War regularly brings to you quotes from the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by the trials. All of these people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the trials.
Hon. K. Subba Rao, LL.D.
Judge, Madras High Court, 1948-1954
Chief Justice, Andhra High Court, 1954-1956, and Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1956-1958
Justice, Supreme Court of India, 1958-1967
Chief Justice of India, 1966-1967
[Minor formatting edits have been made for emphasis and clarity.]
“My brief comments on the subject relate to two aspects:
(1) Whether the convictions of the accused by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg were supported by international law;
(2) Whether the conviction of the Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz of the German Navy was valid.
Article 6 of the Charter establishing the international military tribunal for the trial of the war criminals authorized the tribunal to try three categories of crimes, namely:
(1) Crimes against peace;
(2) War crimes (crimes against the rules and customs of war) and
(3) Crimes against humanity.
The charges against the accused before the said tribunal were that they in pursuance of their common plan conspired and waged wars of aggression in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. The objects of the conspiracy were (1) to abrogate and overthrow the treaty of Versailles and its restrictions on military re-armaments; (2) to acquire territories lost by Germany in the First World War; and (3) to acquire still further territories in continental Europe at the expense of neighboring and other countries. The defendants raised the following points in their defense: (1) There could be no punishment for a crime without a pre-existing law, nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege; (2) ex post facto punishment is opposed by the law of all civilized nations; (3) no sovereign power had made aggressive wars a crime at the time of the commission of the alleged criminal acts; (4) aggressive war had not been defined by any law, nor any penalty prescribed, nor any court created for the trial and punishment of offenders accused of such crimes; (5) they were only acting under the orders of Hitler and they were bound to carry out such orders.
The Tribunal rejected the said pleas. It held that the first maxim was only a principle of justice and was not a limitation of sovereignty, that the defendants knew the treaties signed by Germany outlawing recourse to war, particularly that embodied in the pact of Paris, that as Germany in resorting to war broke the said pact, and that as the said pact was legal in international law, those who were parties to the plan to wage the said war had committed an international crime.
In my view the judgement is assailable. It was mainly based on the pact of Paris. But a close scrutiny of that pact discloses that it was merely a record of a common understanding between the signatories and that it did not constitute the declaration of war as an international crime so as to make each individual participant in the war liable for an international crime. Indeed the pact was not acted upon in the context of war waged between some of the signatories and therefore remained a dead letter. If that pact had not the force of international law, as I show it had not, the whole conviction based upon the breach of that law was bad.
The aforesaid two fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that there can be no punishment of a crime without a pre-existing law and that ex post facto punishment was opposed to the law of all civilized nations are as much the integral parts of international law as they are of national law. As there was no law at the time the alleged acts were committed declaring the waging of war or a conspiracy to wage a war as war crimes, the said principles of justice would preclude the Tribunal from relying upon the charter for convicting the defendants for war crimes.
That apart, it is not possible to hold definitely who was the aggressor in the conflict between the two groups of countries. In the context of a war the concept of aggressor may only mean the leader of a losing party. If the Allies lost the war, Germany could have with equal plausibility named the Allies as aggressors. In the olden days the conqueror slaughtered the leaders of a defeated country and pillaged and plundered the properties of the people of the said country. The Nuremberg trial is only an institutionalization of the said act of vindictive retaliation. The aggressors destroyed the defeated leaders through the legal process of a Tribunal in disregard of all principles of natural justice. The Judges were nominated by the victorious countries. The defeated leaders were convicted for offences that were not in existence at the time they waged the war. The whole trial was one sided and contrary to principles of natural justice.
Be that as it may, I am of the view that Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz of the German Navy was illegally convicted of the offences. He was a subordinate officer and was acting under the orders of Hitler. If he did not act he would have been court martialed. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that he was a member of the conspiracy to wage the aggressive war against the Allies, nor was there any clear evidence to hold that he acted viciously on his own contrary to the orders issued to him.
At the same time it is necessary to have a judicial tribunal to decide the war crimes on the basis of clear and precise concepts of international law. The United Nations shall bring about an international treaty clearly defining the incidents of a war crime and the judicial procedure for enforcing the said law. It shall constitute an international Tribunal comprised of Judges from all the neutral states so that both the victor as well as the vanquished can be tried by the said Tribunal for the breach of the international law of war crimes. While I therefore agree that the Nuremberg trial did not comply with the requirements of law, I am strongly of the view that it is necessary to have an independent international Tribunal, which could objectively go into the war crimes irrespective of the fact they were committed by the vanquished or the victorious on the basis of a clear and precise international law of war crimes.”
Quote from the book Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal edited by H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, 2nd edition, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993.
The Nuremberg Trials Shaped International Criminal Law, For Who?
![screenshot_2018-09-02 michael graham ❌ on twitter to hear brown speak, jews never misbehave they are saints among men, ange[...]](https://wearswar.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/screenshot_2018-09-02-michael-graham-❌-on-twitter-to-hear-brown-speak-jews-never-misbehave-they-are-saints-among-men-ange....png?w=616)
](https://wearswar.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/screenshot_2018-09-02-michael-graham-❌-on-twitter-to-hear-brown-speak-jews-never-misbehave-they-are-saints-among-men-ange...1.png?w=552&h=178)
](https://wearswar.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/screenshot_2018-09-09-questions-for-white-people-on-twitter-every-poll-shows-jews-have-a-more-unfavorable-view-of-christian...1.png?w=616)
“Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Its current 1.8 million inhabitants are crowded into a sliver of land 25 miles long and five miles wide….on the present trajectory, “Gaza will be unliveable” in 2020.” If only there were “6 Million” Palestinians, then they too might be recognized as victims of a Holocaust. NOW we have reached PEAK HYPOCRISY.
Discover The Truth About WWII & It’s Consequences On All Our Lives Today:
WEARS WAR has moved to a new website! 
Well thought out and stated. One of the issues those exposing the Jews have, is how to convey the scope and intensity of the Jew’s lies, deceptions and hypocrisy. With the Jews’ long term ability to control history, this is a difficult job as the average goy has not the slightest background with which to link these critical facts and events.
We have spent years studying the Jewish issue and it has taken all those years to awaken to just how submerged Americans are in the Jews’ world order. So how does one convey all those years of research in the soundbite sleeping masses have been programmed to accept as complete coverage for any given topic? If only we had a box of Hoffman lenses. Then all it might take is a lengthy fist fight.
You have done an admirable job here. Keeping it simple while aiming straight for the Jews’ black heart by repeating the phrase, “Have we reached peak hypocrisy yet? No, not yet:”
Hypocrisy, thy name is Jew.
Here is an interesting interaction between a Jew and ghetto Negroes that took place in the late 1960s. “Don’t Jive Me, Man” – https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/dont-jive-me-man/
LikeLiked by 2 people
In reference to the last part of the post above about Israel and the Jews, we must never forget, overlook, nor minimize that the Jewish power in the US (the country with the largest military (based on dollars) in the world) is aided and abetted by a subset of the Christian population in the US. Christian Zionists, or if one prefers, Zionized Christians. They give the Israeli lobby much political clout in Washington with their votes and their emails, faxes, letters, etc. to their elected representatives supporting all legislation for Israel and the Jews. Incredibly, we now have 26 states that require any applicants for state government jobs or contractors working for the state to pledge not to participate in the BDS movement. Fortunately, an Islamic woman in Texas in suing over this truly outrageous violation of our first amendment freedoms.
It is terribly disturbing and frustrating that President Trump has now twice lobbed missiles at Syria (April, 2017, and again in April, 2018) over alleged chemical attacks on civilians. These are acts of war, and violated the first category of crimes noted above at the Nuremberg trials. What was the intell or basis for these missiles being launched on Syria? Hearsay social media posts!! That is what Defense Secretary Mattis told us last year. Perhaps, another question could be: have we reached the zenith of criminal insanity yet?
LikeLiked by 3 people
(Note – My apologies for this lengthy post involving the very issue I wrote about in my previous comment, that of brevity. However, the facts behind the following comment are so mired in obscure, Judaic religious minutia that a substantial amount of background information must be provided for it to make any sense. I fully understand if it is not being published)
While there is truth in the above view, I have noted increasing effort on the web to put the blame on our own race for our present predicament. The general consensus is that we must first address our own predilections for accepting the Jews’ agenda as our foremost problem.
Of course, as a Jew religion, Christianity arises as the most critical issue in that regard. Yet, what is studiously ignored is the fact, that absent Jews, we would not have these problems ostensibly requiring intense scrutiny of our own motivations. The brilliant Cesar Tort at The West’s Darkest Hour is among the vociferous supporters blaming our present problems on Christian motivations.
I have spent more than thirty years studying and writing about Jesus, the first century culture and environment in which he lived. My research has led to some interesting discoveries. First, and foremost, is the fact that Jesus was obviously not a “Christian” as no such thing existed during his lifetime. Second, Jesus had nothing to do with the religion that presently defines the idea of Christianity. Most importantly, I discovered how the entire story of Jesus was about his opposition to the so-called, second Temple, it’s sacrificial laws and the elite priests that administered the law. (There is no evidence of Solomon’s mythical first Temple outside the Bible)
Therefore my conclusion was, if people knew the critical facts about Jesus, like the fact that his so-called miracles were actually public demonstrations opposing sacrificial law, they would soon realize the story of Jesus had nothing to do with anyone beyond the first century.
Ultimately, I concluded if Jesus could be removed from the religious picture as a deity, then the most critical element of Christianity would be removed and the religion would soon collapse, as would hag Judaism and Islam. Take away Jesus as God by explaining his human actions and expose the Temple for the corrupt religious institution it presented to first century Jews and what is left for Christians to dote on?
I wrote a 750 page book about this subject, being fully prepared for the backlash I would receive from Judaism and her two, ugly, religious, stepdaughters she hates. What I was not prepared for was the vociferous opposition I would receive from anti-Christians and atheists. Apparently, these oppositional groups have as much vested interest in the traditional version of Christianity as Christians.
The typical anti-Christian programming Jews have induced among the goy populations cover a variety of options; or in standard Jew fashion, there is “something for everybody.” For anti-Christians, this means a multitude of options, among the most prevalent being –
(1) Jesus was a complete myth, he never existed. This of course overlooks the fact this would mean Jews have maintained a vehement hatred for a mythical figure for more than two thousand years; a hatred equal only to that of Adolf Hitler. Knowing Jews, does this make any sense?
(2) Jesus was a composite character based on various Roman or other mythical characters. The slick, Jewish video presentation “Zeitgeist” elaborated on this theme.
(3) Jesus might have existed, but he was merely a Jewish rebel opposed to Roman rule. His mission was to lead Jewish opposition to Roman oppression, which would have made him a “messiah” by Jewish definition. Of course, there are any number of variations on these basic themes.
The only explanation deemed unacceptable by anti-Christians is that Jesus was a very real historical character whose only opposition was to traditional first century Judaism and its Temple that had been completely corrupted by the priests to serve their own greedy, avaricious ends. Yet , knowing Jews, why would it be any other way?
What is most interesting is that the most receptive ears for my message are found among the Christian sects, like the Mormons; but then Mormons are a cut above the average intellect. By contrast, the most hidebound views I have encountered are found among anti-Christians. Anti-Christians seem fixated on arguing over the existence of Jesus to the exclusion of all other topics.
What is odd is that anti-Christians have been using this approach to no avail since the day Saul/Paul supposedly met Jesus on the way to Damascus. Yet, when telling Christians Jesus never existed, the standard response is, “You just don’t know Jesus, that is why you do not believe. If you would just accept Jesus into your heart as your savior, then you will know the truth.” In similar manner, Christians have developed a standard rebuttal for every accusation made by anti-Christians.
These oppositional groups have been banging heads for millennia with neither side making substantial gains over the other. So how do these sides reconcile stories like the Raising of Lazarus? While anti-Christians maintain this was merely legend, Christians maintain this was a miracle. In fact, Christians are quite correct. However, they are correct in a manner of which they are unaware.
The first century Jewish definition of a “miracle” was an “unintended outcome to the law.” That would mean the Temple’s sacrificial law. Thus the many supposed magical, mystical stories of Jesus’ “miracles,” like his walking on water, are not miracles by first century Jewish definition, but merely literary curiosities, likely added to enhance the religious message of later Christians.
Like many words used by Jews, the word “Torah” has multiple definitions dependent on the context in which they are used. Torah can mean either “instruction” or “law” or in this case, both. Therefore, by Jewish definition, the Torah is a book of “legal instruction.” The Torah is all about laws concerning sacrificial tribute. Would this not make perfect sense, considering the long-standing Jewish mentality towards money and law?
All of Jesus’ “miracles” presented unintended consequences to the Temple’s legal demands for sacrificial tribute. However, Christians have muddled the original definition of the word “miracle,” which was literally “an unintended outcome to the law.” Like Jesus’ trick of purifying wedding wine without blessing by having the servants pour the wine into ritually pure vessels, thus purifying it without blessing (When Jesus said “it is not yet my time,” he was telling his mother he was not ready to be exposed as a rebel Temple priest. That is why he refused to bless the wine. Doing so without charging tribute would not only have brought his presence as a priest into question, but the act as well.)
Blessing the bread of the multitude without demand for tribute (but not the fish that lay outside the sacrificial system. Read the story carefully) This act “multiplied” the unblessed loaves among the crowd hiding them from a Temple priest. This was by definition, a “miracle,” an unintended outcome to the law for a priest to bless bread without being paid tribute for his services.
Forgiving the sins of the man living in tombs among swine. The story of the Gadarene swine was about a Temple follower who had been ostracized from Jewish culture for unstated crimes. The “devils” that were “legion,” refers to the many Temple followers similarly ostracized. Such ostracizing is still a common practice among Jews today.
Note, all these services were performed by an “anointed” Temple priest, Jesus, without charge. The Temple made its revenue charging a shiny, sheeny shekel for such services. When Jesus exercised his priestly power at no charge, this went directly against both sacrificial law and custom that fed the Temple’s coffers, thus presenting “an unintended outcome to the law.”
Christians have confusingly lumped all of Jesus’ acts together as “miraculous,” like his alleged walk across the lake and healing. The only time healing was a “miracle,” in the first century was when it was performed on Shabbat, against Temple dictate.
So why was the raising of Lazarus a “miracle?” Because this act was based on opposition to the sacrificial law concerning an obscure purification right called the “Para Aduma.” This modified excerpt from my book The Conspiracy of Man explains the reality of the situation underlying the Christian’s magical, mystical explanation of this curious event.
The Raising of Lazarus
Jesus confrontation with the Temple’s legal stance on dead bodies – “the most unclean thing of all”.
By the time of the second Temple, Levirate laws had morphed into a byzantine structure of legal minutiae, endlessly argued by the Temple’s religious authorities. Life under Temple law had become a never-ending string of thou “shalts” and thou “shalt nots” governing almost every conceivable detail of Jewish life. One could never tell when they had sinned, for while one priest or rabbi would say they had, others would argue the counterpoint. The Essene sages had taught Jesus to master such legal arguments. As with the lawyer who had challenged him with payment to Caesar, more than once Jesus had rebuked them with brilliant counter point. By raising Lazarus, he would ultimately challenged Temple authority.
Originally, the law of contacting a dead body, described by Levirate law as “the most unclean thing of all,” had developed during the early Tabernacle period to protect the blood marking of the ritual sacrifice. Centuries before, Levirate law had levied an injunction against coming into contact with any issue of blood, such as that from lepers or menstruating women or freshly dead bodies. The fear was that such contact could be used to counterfeit the blood marking used to verify that one had complied with the sacrificial cycle, a process that enriched the priests with meat and other products. The priests took ten percent of the choicest cuts of meat before returning the reminder to the atoned sinner. The fat and viscera of the animal was then burned on the altar as “sweet savor to the lord”.
However, by the time of the second Temple, the law had become little more than an elaborate scheme to fill its coffers. Even so, a special causeway was built connecting the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives to prevent Temple priests from coming into contact with the graveyard below.
Obviously obtaining such an animal or its remains, was impossible outside the Temple, for only a priest could declare an animal ritually pure. Thus, one had to buy the ashes of the Red Heifer, along with other ritual items, from the Priests. However, since only nine of these animals had ever been sanctified, only the ashes from previous sacrifices were available. When purchasing the ashes, the sinner simply had to trust that these were actually ashes from one of the original nine. Herein lay the potential for tremendous hypocrisy, for while the original law was implemented to prevent counterfeiting of the blood mark, the sacrificial ashes used to ritually purify one who broke the law, could be easily be counterfeited! This however assured an endless supply of the sacred ashes.
The rarity of the animal, combined with the complexity of the ceremony related to a proportional increase in expense, therefore one can guess what this ceremony cost a Jew by the time Jesus was anointed into the ranks of the priesthood. Obviously, because of tight control over the system, the purification ceremony was a very expensive proposition that taxed the means of even wealthy residents. Thus, it was due to this onerous penalty people had resorted to burying their loved ones alive.
The crux of the problem lay in the authority to declare a state of death. Under the law, death was not a matter of the actual physical state of an individual, but a tricky legal issue. By law, one might be declared legally dead, even though they were physically still among the living. The trick to avoiding the sacrificial penalty lay in the disposal of the body before invoking the penalty incurred by the official proclamation of death.
Special beds were developed that had handles that allowed the transport of the body to the grave. The dying would be washed and wrapped in a burial shroud and then transported to the sepulcher, where the individual would typically die of dehydration and/or starvation. The final stage of dehydration is shock. This is characterized by blue-gray skin, cold to the touch, a condition often portrayed in historical depictions. After three days, the body was inspected to verify an actual state of death, as it was exceptional for an individual to survive three days without water in Judea’s hot climate. After decomposition, the bones were collected, placed in an ossuary and buried, opening the space for another body in the sepulcher. It should come as no surprise that by the time of Jesus, a very real fear of being buried alive had arisen among Temple followers and still exists to this day among Jews as depicted in many of their movies.
There was however another subtle twist in the complicated process. Over the centuries, the sacrificial bloodlust had developed a certain pathological state among the priests whereby members derived perverse pleasure from witnessing the suffering of others. Centuries of sacrifice had created a breed of psychopaths who took pleasure in the ritual slaughter and who now felt no remorse or empathy towards those over whom they ruled. Thus, the official proclamation of death was often delivered with this perverse pleasure to both rich and poor alike. For this reason, not only was a legal issue in question, but a moral one as well.
The first century “sepulcher” was typically located in a cave that had shelves cut into the walls; a cool, dark, dry place in a very hot environment, so the dying would have been relatively comfortable lying in state. The dying would be cleansed, wrapped and then laid in the tomb. Normally a person would expire after three days in the tomb from dehydration and/or starvation. Jewish burial custom of the first century was to wrap the head separately from the body and lay the body in a sepulcher. The state of quietus would be officially confirmed on the third day by unwrapping the head and checking for breath. This rigid, religious custom explains why the “Shroud of Turin” is a fake.
Because of the prohibitive cost of the Para Aduma, first century Jews were burying their loved ones alive!
Jesus was a Temple priest, initiated into the priesthood during his cousin John’s Mikveh or “baptism” ceremony. This gave Jesus full legal authority to challenge Temple Law. Therefore, Jesus, could legally challenge the Para Aduma by “raising the dead” which in fact was a reversal of the official decree of death by a Temple Priest. The prohibitive cost of the Para Aduma is highlighted in the canonical Gospels by the fact the first person Jesus “raised from the dead” was the daughter of a wealthy member of the Temple. Had it been a son, Jarius would have undoubtedly paid the sacrificial tax, but women were chattel and a daughter had no real value, so Jarius was willing to allow his daughter to be buried alive in order to avoid the prohibitive cost of the Para Aduma.
To make a more pronounced, official statement of protest, Jesus had a dying Lazarus set up to be “raised from the dead” as public protest against the terrible custom that had developed due to Temple law. This is why a crowd of witnesses was gathered around the tomb for the event. It is critical to note Lazarus lived in what would now be considered a “suburb” of Jerusalem, home to the second Temple. This made it simple to gather Temple followers as official witnesses to Jesus’ actions refuting sacrificial law. This also explains why upon hearing about the raising of Lazarus, the Temple priests immediately ordered the execution of both Jesus and Lazarus. Jesus’ “raising of Lazarus” was an attack on Temple revenue in the same manner as his attack on the Temple’s moneychangers or “kollybistēs”.
The three day time frame of the process is why Jesus was distressed over his arrival on the fourth day to stage his protest and why he had originally been in no hurry, saying “Lazarus is not yet unto death, but sleepeth” when informed Lazarus had died. Jesus’ late arrival had risked his finding a corpse in the tomb.
Another interesting fact is that, according to rigid Jewish custom, there would have been no possible way a Jew of that era would have buried a non-family member in the family tomb – no possible way. Thus, “Joseph of Arimathea” had to have been a family member of Jesus. The name “Joseph”, combined with the fact that this man was himself a Temple priest, points to the high probability this Joseph was in all likelihood Jesus’ real father.
Ask yourself – “Does this version make sense in the known physical world in which I live? Does it dovetail with the Jews’ known nature?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sites are blocked where one can buy the book, so who or what ist censoring? HH
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:59 AM WEARS WAR on the Lies, Liars & WW2 wrote:
> wearswar posted: “After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later > trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to > dispense impartial justice. Wears War regularly brings to you quotes from > the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by” >
LikeLike
The Amazon option should work.
https://www.amazon.com/GERMANYS-WAR-Origins-Aftermath-Atrocities/dp/0982344899/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500655229&sr=1-1&keywords=germany%27s+war
Perhaps TBR and AFP are experiencing payment processor difficulties at the moment. It would not be the first time they have been under attack.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on THE FOURTH REICH CENTURY.
LikeLike